Please Read Hansard from 1966 on Common Market. When Parliament was split.
Thursday, 17 January 2013
BROWSING THROUGH THE
DEBATES IN THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT----HANSARD.
Most politicians, if
not all, know exactly what the European Union is to turn into, for it is
written clearly enough in Hansard. It is only the ordinary people of the
Country that these politicians of yesterday and today didn't see fit to
enlighten. Yet these ordinary people trusted them, they voted for them to look
after them and this their Country.
As I take words from
Hansard, and to mean anything at all, they have to be the words taken from
before we actually joined the European Community or Common Market as we were
told. My one difficulty is, there are so many words to choose from on this
subject it is difficult to choose which ones to set down for you to read. I
have put the dates and column numbers for your own confirmation.
Prime Minister
Harold Macmillan 31st July 1961 (column 928) "This is political as well
as an economic issue. Although the Treaty of Rome is concerned with economic
matters it has an important political objective, namely to promote unity and
stability in Europe which is so essential a factor in the struggle for freedom
and progress throughout the world".
Mr Fell (Same day Column 935), "Is the Prime Minister
aware that this decision to gamble with the British sovereignty in Europe, when
650 million people in the British Commonwealth depend upon his faith and his
leadership, is the most disastrous thing that any Prime Minister has done for
many generation past?"
On 2nd
August 1961 column 1478 a Mr Silverman is restating that on the 28th
June he moved a Motion about the European Common Market in the following terms,
"That
this House, being gravely concerned at the pressure to make this country enter
a European Common Market and the consequent threat to subject its independence,
its membership of the Commonwealth and its right and power to plan its economy
in its own way, to a political union with Germany, France, Italy and Benelux,
as well as a threat to the survival of the Commonwealth inherent in these proposals,
urges Her Majesty's Government not to enter into any negotiations concerning
such entry until expressly empowered so to do by a conference of Commonwealth
Prime Ministers and by this House."
Later on that same
day, column 1480 at 3.42 pm, the Prime Minister Harold Macmillan: "I
beg to move, That this House supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government
to make formal application under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome in order to
initiate negotiations to see if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet
the special interests of the United Kingdom. Etc, etc"
Later on
(column1491) he states, "This problem of sovereignty, to which
we must, of course, attach the highest importance is, in the end, perhaps a
matter of degree. I fully accept that
there are some forces in Europe which would like a genuine federalist system.
There are many of my colleagues on both sides of the House who have seen this
at Strasbourg and other gatherings. They would like Europe to turn itself into
a sort of United States, but I believe this to be a completely
false-analogy."
Mr Gaitskell then
reminds the Prime Minister (column 1498) what Macmillan said in 1956 when
Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was, Finally, we must recognise that the aim of
the main proponents of the Community is political integration. We can see that
in Article 138 of the Treaty, which looks towards a common assembly, directly
elected. The whole idea of the six, the coal and steel community and Euratom is
a movement towards political integration. That is a fine assertion, but we must
recognise that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the
ultimate goal---to accept as the ultimate goal--political federation in Europe,
including ourselves".
Later on
(column1501) Mr Gaitskell says, "There is the question of a common
currency, which is mentioned in various quarters as something to which we must
look forward. In my opinion, it is idle
to speak about a common currency until there is a common government, and the
idea of not being in control of our own currency, and having it subject to a
supranational or international gathering, would be quite wrong, and I hope
that, equally, will be made abundantly plain".
On 3rd
August 1961 (column 1735) Mr Shinwell continues his words after having read out
a part of the Treaty of Rome, ending with "reinforcement of the European
Parliament through direct elections and widening of its powers and, finally, a
European Government. That is the
intention. That is their object and
that is what they are saying on Hon Members can talk until they are black in
the face about the Rome Treaty and there being no provision for federation, but
there is no doubt that from the declarations made by some of the most
influential people--M.Spaak, Professor Hallstein and others who have indicated
that there is a definite intention and that once we accept the economic
provisions of the Rome Treaty---and it looks as though this government
might---they are on their way towards complete political integration".
"I wonder what this place
will be like during the course of the next ten years? There will not be 630 Hon
Members. There will be no need for more than 150 or so. It will be
like---"
Mr A. C. Manuel, "A
Council".
Mr Shinwell, "I
was about to say a Parish Council, with the authority of some kind delegated to
it by the European Parliament and dictated to be a European Government. To that we are being led".
On 16th
November 1966, Column 446, I quote just a couple of comments from the then
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr George Brown on the subject of
joining the EEC, "The issue today is not do we join Europe-- (who does he
remind you of?) we have always been there. The
issue is can we play such a role that from here on the continent shall be
unified and we shall be effectively a leader of it?" And a little later on (488) he says,
"We could clearly play a much
greater role from within the Community, in influencing these affairs than we
can play from outside".
I now turn to Sir
D.Walker-Smith, snippets from his speech on 16th November 1966
(Column474) "On the constitutional side, the agricultural position shows
clearly under the Treaty of Rome we would no longer be masters in our own house
and that the powers of decision would pass from Parliament. For many years this country has practised a
system of price support. It may or may
not be the best system, but it has operated for 20 years with the assent of
both sides of the House, etc, etc".
"But the constitutional
question is clear. It would not matter if not one Member wanted to change the
system. That would be irrelevant
because, under the Treaty of Rome, if we join the Community the power of
decision passes from this House".
"I now turn to the
political and constitutional aspects, of which there are two. First, there is
the immediate affect of adherence to the Treaty on British sovereignty, and
secondly, the future question whether membership of the Community carries any
implied or inescapable commitment to political federation in the future?"
"On the second of those
matters, the position is clear as far as it goes; but our range of vision is
necessarily limited. The Treaty, of course, carries no express commitment to
future federation. But the difficulty
is that as time goes by, if we join the Community, the decision about
federation would not be one of our own choosing so much as the will of others,
because our arrangements would be so inextricably involved with those of the
Community that it would be difficult to the point of impossibility in practice---though
not impossible in theory-- to dissociate ourselves from a supranational
federation if our partners decide that they want it". Etc, etc,
"I come now to the other
question relating to the political and constitutional aspect---the immediate consequences
of signing the Treaty of Rome. Here we
can see the position much more clearly.
Two truths are apparent---first, that over a wide range of our national
life there would be an immediate abandonment of sovereignty and of our
constitutional principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. The second truth is
that, so far, the British people have very little idea of what is
involved".
Column 478, "It
is clear that Article (189) in respect of those Regulations this House can be
nothing but a conduit pipe. That will
be its role. We cannot reject of even
vary any of the regulations which are at present pouring out from
Brussels. The collective law of the
Community would bind the individual British citizen, and Parliament and Courts
alike would be powerless to intervene.
That would be a heavy price to pay for Membership of the
Community".
"The British people may,
in the event, pay it. I do not presume
to prophesy about that, but I do know that they should not be asked to pay it
in ignorance. It is a mistake to assume
that the British people are interested only in the economic bread and butter
aspects of this matter. It is a mistake
to assume that they are not interested in these great political and constitutional
matters. I know, of course, that terms
like "sovereignty" are not part of the every day idiom of the British
people; but the represent things which are long-established and cherished. They are like the air we breath---little
noticed in its presence but valued beyond price in the event of deprivation".
"There is therefore, a
duty on the Government of explanation and instruction, a duty not to gloss over
these political and constitutional consequences".
Mr Stanley Orme, 16th
November 1966, Col 489. "I want first to consider the European
situation. At a private meeting in the House, M. Spaak, who was prominent in
the setting up of the Community, explained his concept of what the European
Community should be and what it should entail, and his explanation sent shivers
down the spine's of some of my Hon Friends who are very pro-European. M. Spaak's political concept is that of many
statesmen, particularly among the five, excluding France, (General de Gaulle,
who wanted a Europ des Patries) It is the political issue which we must
seriously consider".
"M. Spaak is against the
entry of any neutrals. He regards the
Community purely as an extension of the militarily based N.A.T.O. a further
extension of a military alliance. I do
not attribute those views to all of my Hon Friends who favour entry, but I do
know that there are many Hon Members on both sides of the House who are
interested in the Community not just as an economic unit but as a political
unit too. They regard it as a
supranational authority of which Britain should be a part".
Page 492 still Mr
Orme, "It has been said that the British people do not fully understand
what is involved in our entry to the Common Market. This is true, and I am hoping that the continuing debates on this
matter will get the facts across to our people. It is not just a matter of an increase in food prices, serious as
they may be; it is not simply the effect on the economy, the distribution of
our industry and our future development, or our social services. It has also to do with how the Community is
operated and controlled. The Community
is undemocratic".
Mr Jennings 16th
November 1966 Column 495.
"I cannot bring myself to assume that there will be no political
and constitutional connotations if we sign the Treaty of Rome. It is historically illogical that this
should happen, that one step will follow another, and that from economic union
there will follow political union. I
have no objection to economic arrangements, even a negotiated economic union,
provided we get certain safeguards. But
I am horrified when I am told that I am as British as ever because I do not
want to be a European first. I want to
be British first and European after. Is
there any shame of disgrace in wanting to be British first? It is therefore the implications and
consequences of economic union of which I am frightened".
"We know quite well that
five or six years ago, when we debated the question in this House, the
sentiment in most of those who supported going into the Market was eventually
for a political alignment and a politically united Europe. They do not deny it. They are quite
honest. Even Members who are here
tonight are nodding their heads on agreement.
They know that this is what they want.
That is what frightens me".
"The question of
sovereignty or loss of sovereignty and political union in a political union in
a federal United States of Europe has been swept nicely, beautifully and
quietly under the carpet".
"It is almost a sin to
talk about it. Apparently we have got
to get into the Community, because of the mess we are in, in order to live as a
nation. 'Oh thou of little faith',. Have we lost faith in our own selves? Have we lost pride in our own ability even
to stand alone?"
Page 497. "My
Rt. Hon and leaned friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir D. Walker-Smith who
five years ago most expertly, throughout the country and in this House, exposed
what the loss of sovereignty would be, has touched upon it and given us the
gist of it this afternoon. But the
ordinary man in the street has no conception of what he will lose in rights and
privileges that he now enjoys, even in a denigrated Britain, which is the
attitude that many people tend to adopt.
I mean questions of social services, benefits, rates of contributions,
the position of the trade unions and all that sort of thing. How much loss of sovereignty of this House
will there be"?
"It is easy to talk glibly
about going into Europe. That is the
way that it is put over to the electorate.
"Let us go into Europe". Is the theme. We never attempt to say what we mean by
going into Europe, but just what do we mean?
Do we mean trade? Is that
all? Do we leave the other sort of
things, the unmentionables? Under the carpet or push them under the bed, or
where? By going into Europe, do we mean
in addition to the trade negotiations a form of federalism in which Britain
would become a State in a United States of Europe, or part of Europe---what I
have described as the rump of Europe"?
"I am not in favour of a
federal United States of Europe or binding ourselves in any direction like
that. I would look more kindly on a
confederal system, if we had to have something like this. The alternative is what is called
federalism."
"I am not prepared to sign
a blank cheque that would denude this House of its powers; nor can I support a
central Parliament to which we would contribute electorally, a central
Parliament in Europe. I ask the Rt Hon
Gentleman who is to reply to this debate, if this question of sovereignty and all
it means does not arise, will he tell us quite clearly, and if he does, will he
tonight, or his Rt. Hon Friends tomorrow night, tell us how much loss of
sovereignty is involved"?
16th
November 1966 Column 510. Mrs Renee
Short. "I must add my view that
many of those speaking in favour of going into the Common Market are tending to
gloss over the problems and difficulties that would face us as a Nation. This is not really being fair to the public
outside this place whom we represent and who rely on us for leadership in this
matter, and in connection with all the other important problems with which we
as Members of Parliament have to deal".
"My own view on this issue
of entering or not entering the Common Market we have been brainwashed for a
long time. I do not go along with this
emotive phrase, "Going into Europe".
As my Rt. Hon Friend said, we are in Europe; the question is what sort
of Europe are we going into? Enormous
pressure has been exerted, not only by big business, which has obviously vested
interests for going into Europe, but by the Press". Etc, etc.
Page 518 still Mrs
Short. "It is no use saying that if we go into
the Common Market we should accept the Treaty of Rome as if it is written, with
all the small print---most of which I find extremely alarming, including many
articles which were referred to by the Rt. Hon and learned Member for
Hertfordshire (Sir D. Walker-Smith), which refer to the power of the Commission
to issue directives to Member States as to what they should do about their
economy. There are many of these articles
(Interruption) Oh yes, there are. There are at least a
dozen. The Rt. Hon Gentleman gave some
of the numbers. They lay down clearly
that the Commission can issue directives to Member States. In the event of economic difficulties the
Commission can issue directives about taxation, aid to nationalised industries,
and many other matters which affect the economies of nations".
"It is no good saying,
"It is all right. We can accept
this and when we get inside we shall be able to change the machinery." This is barking up the wrong tree. If we go in we shall have precisely the same
voting power--no more and no less, as West Germany, France or Italy, based on
population. We shall therefore be faced
with the possibility of being out-voted if three or four or five, of the
existing Members decide to vote together on any issue. We shall be able to speak and raise our
voice, but our vote will not be decisive".
-------------------------------
16.11.1966 Column
530 Mr. A.J.Irvine, "It
will be found that there is strong opposition in this country and, I think, on
this side of the House, to federalism, and I share that opposition. There is certainly strong opposition to an
excess of federalism, to any loss of identity of this Parliament, to any loss
of sovereignty affecting foreign affairs, defence or certain aspects of our
industrial and economic planning".
"The most interesting
single feature of the Community at present is that, as I understand it, in our
dislike of the federal solution we have a supporter in the President of France,
and in the outlook of the French Government.
The President's objections to federalism, which I share and which are
enormously influential inside the Community, might in some respects neutralise
his objection to our special relation with the United States".
16th
November 1966 Page 535. Sir Legge-Bourke.
"The only respectable basis upon which anybody could be in favour
of Britain's entering the Common Market is by being at the same time entirely
confederalist or federalist for Europe as a whole. A study of the Treaty of Rome shows straight away that inevitable
it will involve political changes of a federal kind. How far and how fast and exactly how federal or confederal will
be worked out as the years go by, but it is wrong to suppose that the Community
can survive without a customs union being followed by a single currency, and it
is wrong to suppose that the countries of the organisation can keep alive the
vigour with which they started--- and all credit to them--- without developing
politically with all this. To make that
supposition is to fail to face what is in the Treaty, or is deliberately to
deceive the people.
"I believe that the Treaty
was conceived in a spirit of high federalism.
It was soon apparent to Europe that Britain was not overkeen on that
idea, but Britain had to be brought in by the architects of the document. And so the whole thing was trimmed and as
the negotiations developed, the emphasis was more and more on economics and
less and less on the political side".
"I have long believed that
the most important economic freedom for nations is the one freedom which was
left out of the four Atlantic freedoms---the freedom of choice to do business
with whomsoever one will on mutual beneficial terms. In other words, this is the right to discriminate in trade. This right was taken from us particularly by
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was signed by the first
Labour Government after the war. Again,
I do not want to hark back over what happened after that. I deeply regret that when it was returned to
power the Conservative Party did not exercise the full rights which it had
reserved through the mouth of Oliver Stanley and reassert our rights to alter
our preferential tariffs and so on".
8th May
1967 Column 1088. The Prime Minister Mr Harold Wilson. "I should like to deal before I come to
the political issue. One of them, on
which certain anxieties have been expressed, is that the constitutional and
legal implications for this country if we join the European Community. Here again, our examination of the Treaties
and the other law emanating from the European Institutions, but even more of
the way in which member states have been applying Community law, taking full
account of realities prevailing in the member states, has greatly reassured us
about the possible implications for Britain."
"It is important to
realise that Community law is mainly concerned with industrial and commercial
activities, with corporate bodies rather than private individuals. By far the greater part of our domestic law
would remain unchanged after entry.
Nothing in the Treaty would, for example, materially affect the general
principles of the law of contract or tort or its Scottish equivalent, land law,
the relations of landlord and tenant, housing, town and country planning,
matrimonial law, or the law of inheritance.
The constitutional rights and liberties of the individual such as habeas
corpus and the presumption of innocence will, of course not be affected; not in
any material sense will our criminal law.
The main affect of Community law on our existing law is in the realms of
commerce, Customs, restrictive practices and immigration and the operation of
steel, coal and nuclear energy industries."
8th May
1967 Column 1109. Mr Turton. "The debate is historic, to follow the
remarks of my Rt. Hon Friend, Sir Alec Douglas-Hume) It is historic because, if
we join the Common Market, under Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome, NO Hon
Member will be able to get up in this House and protest and vote against
regulations which affect the economic or social welfare of his
constituents. For many of us that is
the main reason why we take the view which we hold on this issue".
"Last November, I and many
of my Rt, Hon Friends asked for a White Paper on the constitutional issues. We
felt that they were what all the country should know about. We have never had it. We have never had a White Paper on the
economic issues. We have only had an
article, a very fair and, I thought, damning article in The Times of last
Monday.
Column 1114. "I
believe that acceptance of the Motion would lead to a betrayal of the Queen in
Parliament, would be disloyal to our Commonwealth Members, and would put
unendurable burdens on the British people".
8th May
1967 Column 1154. Mr Erec S. Heffer. "I
also want us to go into the Community because I believe that a United States of
Europe is absolutely essential, and I want to see a Socialist United States of Europe. That is the prospect. I believe that we can get a socialist United
States of Europe."
Finally I will
finish with Mr Peter Shore (as he was then) on 22 February 1972 column 1164. "When
we consider the net effects of what we pay out and receive back, these
arrangements are little short of a national disaster. No Government in their senses could have agreed to terms so
clearly against and detrimental to our interests. It is difficult to imagine a system of taxation, a tax mix, that
could impose a heavier and more disproportionate burden upon us than the
particular tax mix that has emerged as the permanent tax system of the
Community under the "own resources" rule. I do not say that was the Community's purpose, but they have been
extremely blind in not recognising the grievous effect this is bound to have
upon us. Indeed, I cannot recall
another example in history of a free
country, without compulsion from outside, entering upon an arrangement so
damaging to itself."
"Apart from being disastrous and unfair, these
arrangements, as the Financial Secretary has made abundantly clear, constitutes
a direct challenge to the most important power of Parliament, our exclusive
control over taxation. As the Ways and Means Resolution makes clear, we shall permit
the Community to tax the British people. We are acceding not just to the Treaty
of Rome but to the Treaty of Luxembourg of April 1970, which specifically
authorised the Community to have its own resources and to receive the yield of
the three taxes to which I have referred."
"That agreement was a
major development in the Community and I found it extraordinary that, in our
debate last week, neither the Solicitor General nor the Prime Minister had
anything to say about it. The Solicitor-General
amused himself greatly by quoting from the 1967 White Paper on the legal and
constitutional implications of Britain joining the Common Market but, in his
efforts to show that the constitutional innovation of the Communities having
directly applicable law in the United Kingdom was known in 1967, he totally,
and to me surprisingly, omitted to mention the second and even greater
constitutional innovation which occurred in 1970: the right of the Communities
to tax directly the Member States".
"For the Prime Minister to
say, as he did last Thursday, that the constitutional position has not changed
in any single respect since the negotiations of 1961, when it was fully
discussed in the House time and again, is stretching the truth to the greatest
possible extent."
"This is a major
development in the Communities, as a consequence of which there is a major
intrusion into the sovereignty of Parliament.
The strongest of all our constitutional principles is that Parliament,
and in particular the House of Commons which represents the people of this
country, alone has the right to levy taxation.
That has been the basic constitutional doctrine. Because Parliament three centuries ago
insisted on this right, we gradually brought the Crown and the Executive under
the control of elected representatives.
As we were reminded recently, Parliament made the supply of money to the
Government conditional on the remedying of grievances. That was the way in which control by the
House of Commons was brought about".
"There should be no doubt
about what is intended here. It is not
proposed that we should make a contribution to the Communities, which we can
alter if we think it is too much or too little. It is not a contribution at all.
The right to levy taxes, which are specified, is to be ceded to
non-elected institutions of the Community without the further consent of
Parliament of the British people
As the Ways and Means
Resolution puts it, we shall be,
"giving effect to any charge to taxation of those
Communities"
That is quite unacceptable to
us."
There are more,
many, many more pages of these debates, for the debates on our entry into the
Community cover a great many number of years. I hope I have proved, without a
shadow of doubt, that most, if not all Members of Parliament knew what the
Community was eventually, step by step, to become. Many Members of Parliament wanted to join, many did not. Again
without a doubt, the truth of what the Community was to become was kept from
the people of this Country. This was a complete betrayal to ALL in this
Country. Today's politicians can find
out the true facts of our history regarding this County's entry into the
European Community in exactly the same way that I have. It just takes time and patience. It is all
recorded, every sordid detail, (Britain's shame) in Hansard.
No matter how long
ago these events took place, the Members of Parliament that are still alive,
should and must be made accountable for their actions, in the same way that
'today's' MPs will surely be
Posts
